 |
| Image Source: Independent Publisher |
Kenneth Kidd is an English professor at the University
of Florida. His 2009 article entitled, "Not
Censorship but Selection": Censorship and/as Prizing argues
there is a relationship between the censorship of children’s
literature and selection of young peoples’ book awards (Kidd, 2009, p. 199). Kidd
highlights the parallels between these seemingly two opposites. Where
censorship assumes what is bad, prizing assumes what is good yet both processes
involve subjective evaluation of the value and content of children’s literature
(Kidd, 2009, p. 198). The article argues that the selection of books
for awards such as America’s Newbury medal almost guarantees
their commercial success and so by default exclusion from these awards could be
viewed as a form of censorship (Kidd, 2009, p. 198).
Kidd points out that in the US, the American Library Association is the central body when it comes to censoring and prizing children’s literature (Kidd, 2009, p. 202). He implies that the ALA has a degree of control over youth literature that would not be acceptable for adult genres. Macleod makes a similar criticism of Australia’s Book of the Year awards (Macleod, 2011, p. 31).
Kidd’s work highlights that book censoring is counter-productive as it raises the profile and circulation of titles with events such as Banned Book week . He raised my awareness of the fact that this has a “canonisation” effect where all challenged material is automatically assumed to have literary or social merit (Kidd, 2009, p. 210). The article concludes that the best way to kill a book is to let it go quietly (Kidd, 2009, p. 214).
This article raises challenges for children’s librarians to consider when selecting material. We should not simply assume all prize-winning books are good and all challenged material is bad or vice versa. In 1971 Josh by Ivan Southall was the first Australian novel to win the UK’s prestigious Carnegie medal and yet it was not shortlisted for Australia’s Book of the Year award (Macleod, 2011, p. 31). In 2007 many US schools and librarians pledged to ban a Newbury award winning title, The higher Power of Lucky by Susan Patron because it used the word “scrotum” (Bosman, 2007). These examples highlight the subjective nature and social context of awards and censorship.
I found it useful to refer back to Asheim’s original 1953 articles Not censorship but Selection which is still relevant sixty years later. He argued that it is the motives behind our actions that are important. Since librarians can never collect (or award) all material, selection will always be necessary. It is not censorship if we select with a positive, rational and intelligent view of the reader. We should judge books on their complete content not on one word taken out of context or the politics of the author (Asheim, 1953).
Kidd’s article does not provide all the answers but he highlights the need for further discussions. Children’s librarians should use forums, blogs and social networking sites to debate and share views on censorship and prizing as this will aid with the selection and democratisation of children’s collections.
Kidd points out that in the US, the American Library Association is the central body when it comes to censoring and prizing children’s literature (Kidd, 2009, p. 202). He implies that the ALA has a degree of control over youth literature that would not be acceptable for adult genres. Macleod makes a similar criticism of Australia’s Book of the Year awards (Macleod, 2011, p. 31).
Kidd’s work highlights that book censoring is counter-productive as it raises the profile and circulation of titles with events such as Banned Book week . He raised my awareness of the fact that this has a “canonisation” effect where all challenged material is automatically assumed to have literary or social merit (Kidd, 2009, p. 210). The article concludes that the best way to kill a book is to let it go quietly (Kidd, 2009, p. 214).
This article raises challenges for children’s librarians to consider when selecting material. We should not simply assume all prize-winning books are good and all challenged material is bad or vice versa. In 1971 Josh by Ivan Southall was the first Australian novel to win the UK’s prestigious Carnegie medal and yet it was not shortlisted for Australia’s Book of the Year award (Macleod, 2011, p. 31). In 2007 many US schools and librarians pledged to ban a Newbury award winning title, The higher Power of Lucky by Susan Patron because it used the word “scrotum” (Bosman, 2007). These examples highlight the subjective nature and social context of awards and censorship.
I found it useful to refer back to Asheim’s original 1953 articles Not censorship but Selection which is still relevant sixty years later. He argued that it is the motives behind our actions that are important. Since librarians can never collect (or award) all material, selection will always be necessary. It is not censorship if we select with a positive, rational and intelligent view of the reader. We should judge books on their complete content not on one word taken out of context or the politics of the author (Asheim, 1953).
Kidd’s article does not provide all the answers but he highlights the need for further discussions. Children’s librarians should use forums, blogs and social networking sites to debate and share views on censorship and prizing as this will aid with the selection and democratisation of children’s collections.
References
Asheim, L. (1953). Not
censorship but selection. Wilson Library Bulletin, 28(1),
63-67.
Bosman,
J. (2007, February 18). With one word children’s book sets off uproar. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/
Kidd, K. (2009). "Not Censorship but
Selection": Censorship and/as Prizing. Children's
Literature in Education, 40(3), 197-216.
Thought-provoking ideas. Several points you raise seem to be often overlooked even though they are valid, important aspects of censorship. I have not considered that there would be a relationship between censored books and contenders for book awards, but after some reflection I can see there could easily be a correlation.
ReplyDeleteSquires (2004, p.38-39) notes prominent book award winners reap the benefits of press and publicity, including media attention and prominent displays in book stores. Of course this “ultimate cultural capital”, as Kelen calls it, generates more interest and sales which in turn equals real “economic capital”.
Conversely, and “paradoxically”, censored books can also get a lot of press. Kelen noted that when a book has been banned, it “stands somehow as a mark of its truth and virtue (and, of course, of our own for being outraged at the very fact of censorship)” (1996, p.705).
Being aware of some of the issues and politics behind noth censored books and award winners can help us all to be both better librarians and better consumers.
Kelen, S. (1996). “It is dangerous (gentle reader)”: Censorship, Holinshed’s Chronicle, and the politics of control. The Sixteenth Century Journal. 27(3). pp.705-720.
Squires, C. (2004). A common ground? Book prize culture in Europe. The Public. 11(4). pp.37-48.